Remember, the President cannot unilaterally sign a treaty. Treaties require the approval of the senate. The examiner article is nothing more than blatant fear mongering.
Doesn’t the next senate have a Democrat majority? Isn’t Harry Reid still the ramrod?
You mean the 'Harry Reid' Senate? Think about that; it's not fear mongering, it's appropriate concern!
The Dems have a 55-45 majority in the Senate, which the legislative body that approves/disapproves treaties.
There are not 67 votes in the Senate for this POS treaty. Its not going to happen but be sure to email or call your senators anyway and let them know its totally unacceptable.
You’re talking like the constitution still applied.
It’s gone.
In signing ACTA, President Barack Obama has again leapfrogged over the U.S. Constitution, critics charge. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was signed by the United States and several other countries on October 1 with little fanfare.
In wake of the recent uproar (and subsequent shelving) of the proposed United States’ bills SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act), however, many Americans are now turning their fears toward ACTA.
This is not surprising, as critics say that ACTA would censor the Internet even more severely than either SOPA or PIPA would have done.
According to Forbes:
Few people have heard of ACTA… but the provisions in the agreement appear quite similar to – and more expansive than – anything we saw in SOPA. Worse, the agreement spans virtually all of the countries in the developed world, including all of the EU, the United States, Switzerland and Japan.
And this treaty would trump all local and national laws.
Which is part of the reason critics, constitutional scholars, and one Senator is challenging Obama’s constitutional right to sign this treaty.
Obama claims that he signed it as an “executive agreement” which does not require Congressional approval. However, everyone else categorizes it as a treaty, which does require such approval.